The way he used the term? Huh? "Conspiracy theory" is an accepted term that @Kai "the spy" used correctly, in accordance with its standard accepted usage.
The Flat-Earth Conspiracy Theory
- Thread starter Argus Skyhawk
- Start date
So, semantics then. Okay, nice we cleared that up.
No, it's more than that. You're reacting to my first sentence and ignoring the larger point that it was just meant to set up. The semantic point is merely the springboard for what I'm actually talking about, which is a way of thinking about the question that basically agrees with and elaborates on what you were saying.
I read your whole post, and I understood it. At least, I think I did. Anyway, I saw that we were pretty much in agreement about what we were saying, and the disagreement was one word which I didn't use in the scientific sense you prefer.
And I get that. Both my parents were teachers, believe me, I can be pedantic, too. But can't we just agree to actually agree and be done with this?
No, that's not the actual point, it's just the way I segued into my actual point. It's the beginning of the point I was making, not the end goal. It's not about anything as simplistically binary as "did/didn't prefer"; it would be a total waste of time even trying to have conversations if they were never about anything more complex than the flip of a coin. It's about suggesting that the real definition of theory offers a useful way of thinking about the question. "Theory" is not just a word, it's a tool. Language gives us ways of thinking about things and relating to them, and defining a question in the right terms is a valuable part of getting a handle on it.
Your point was about distinguishing between actual conspiracies and irrational beliefs in imaginary conspiracies. My point is that the mindset that comes with theoretical, scientific thinking is tailor-made for solving exactly that kind of problem, because the whole purpose of a theory is to create a conceptual framework whose validity can be tested against the evidence. What I'm saying is that it's the evidence that matters. The way to distinguish between the real conspiracies we have to worry about and the fringe theories of the delusional is by looking at the evidence (or lack thereof) rather than just the assertions. Society today is overly preoccupied with what people claim and what they believe, and what gets lost in the noise of claims and counterclaims is that it's actually possible to determine who's right by comparing the claims against the evidence. If we placed more value on evidence-based thinking and the process of testing ideas, then irrational, ideological, and counterfactual beliefs wouldn't be able to gain so much influence.
To a scientist, "theory" isn't just an arbitrary word, it's a whole worldview -- a way of codifying reality and solving problems, a powerful, fundamental tool for understanding the universe and sorting good ideas from bad. The layperson's definition of "theory" is just an ineffectual shrug -- "there's no way to know." That's backward, because the process of formulating a testable theory is how you find the answers. It's not merely an assertion of uncertainty, it's a mechanism for reducing that uncertainty. And that's what I'm talking about -- applying that whole way of thinking to the problem.
You're absolutely right. In the future, let's all refer to conspiracy hypotheses instead of conspiracy theories.
No, an hypothesis is a prediction of the world's behaviour based on the theory.
Get it right!
I'm disappointed that you're only interested in reducing this to simplistic, dismissive responses instead of trying to engage with the ideas I'm trying to contribute. My goal is to offer a useful way of addressing the problem you raised, a way of thinking that helps differentiate the real conspiracies we need to worry about from the nonsense. It's not about the words.
Seriously? That's what you're trying to "contribute?" Dude, I really hate to break it to you, but you are not the first person to think of this. Even @Kai "the spy"'s post, the one that you yourself were referring to, indicated that he was concerned with separating fact from fiction based on evidence.
That depends: are you talking about Presley or Costello?
Nope, the concept of empirically examining the evidence is new to us. It's always good to learn about such things. On a less erudite note:
I said "woman", surely it's obvious, the female one!
I said "woman", surely it's obvious, the female one!
There was no need of a magic bullet, due to the off-set seating of the car.
I saw documentaries on other subjects that also led me to the same path as you.
There was a program called TOP COPS, where a woman claimed someone was outside their home--and shot her husband dead. The killer was standing outside--her husband--in a chair on the inside.
The bullet came from outside--yet most of the glass was also found on the outside.
Now--you would think that the bullet would have pushed glass inside the house on its way to the victim, right? The police thought she had shot her husband--pushing the glass outside the home.
On a lark, a policeman (outside the home) fired at the replacement pane of glass at a certain angle. A good bit of the glass popped back and hit him in the face--as opposed to going out the other side and into the house.
Then there was a documentary called: MONSTER: A Portrait of Stalin in Blood.
This showed a commissar's henchman standing on a mound of dirt. Before him, standing in the grave he just dug for himself, was the political prisoner. The henchman fired into the back of the prisoner's head.
In his mind, the executioner thought his victim would fall forward into the grave--like a plank.
No dice. Instead, the prisoner jerked and fell back. The executioner dropped his pistol--and tried to shove the corpse forward. That didn't work either--he just rag-dolled straight down. People had to get into the grave, pull on the carcass--and stretch him out.
So the backward action of JFK is explained. Had the killer been in the grassy knoll--the exit wound would have been on the other side of the head.
That having been said. The Nova documentary. You may remember there was one trajectory line that led backwards--but not to the schoolbook depository. This led across the street. Now--this line disappeared--merged with the others upon changing the seating arrangement in the car.
I have often wondered what was at the other end of that line--just in case...
Last edited:
There's also a theory that the third shot was accidentally discharged from a secret service agent's AR-15 in the following vehicle rather than from Oswald's Carcano. The documentary about this theory makes convincing viewing but, of course, it might have used selective presentation of evidence:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/S...t_Service_agent_killed_President_Kennedy.html
I'm probably inherently biased to give more credence to a combination of cockup and coverup rather than a deep conspiracy that used Oswald as its patsy.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/S...t_Service_agent_killed_President_Kennedy.html
I'm probably inherently biased to give more credence to a combination of cockup and coverup rather than a deep conspiracy that used Oswald as its patsy.
Last edited: